Anquietas314

Uh, yeah that's not going to be enough with that much fuel and a full orange tank as payload. I would go with double that. You're also going to want a lot more intakes. A lot more. Alternatively, you could just use less fuel. You don't need quite that much to get to orbit - about half the rocket fuel should be sufficient if you can get it up to ~1600m/s using jets.

Until I saw someone on here saying you could, neither did I lol

The option exists in the tracking station in 0.90. I don't know if it existed before in the map view as well though

I already know C++, thank you. The trouble is it's a lot more work to set up drawing pretty pictures with complex equations in C++

Uh, did you not already post this in what is really the more appropriate forum? This appears to be almost a copy-paste.

That would require 1) learning to use a tool I have no other practical use for (matlab) and 2) owning a copy of matlab, which at £85 is simply not worth it to me (and ahem pirated software is bad, mkay. >_>)

Well, true but remember rocket designs in KSP rarely match with real life - they tend to be shorter and fatter, plus it is only the tier 1 launchpad.

Well, LD seems to be satisfied with Iskierka's explanation. Namely that it's not a real force - which imho means the term "centripetal lift" is a misnomer (in two ways but that's not very important) - but the term is relevant for polar coordinates. Since this isn't my thread/model/..., I don't see that my opinion on whether it's been adequately dealt with is relevant, as long as the OP is happy with it EDIT: I should add that I of course have no intention of putting words in anyone's mouth

While this would be cool to see, I think adding gravity to ships and stations would be both nonsensical and a huge performance hit since you'd probably want it to be a per-part thing (so big heavy parts have more gravity than, say, a girder). For asteroids, all you really need to do is make them (a lot) bigger for the gravity to be worthwhile... though then you wouldn't really be able to move them (see Scott Manley's old video on why you can't deorbit Gilly - and its gravity is almost non-existent). I suppose bigger asteroids might be considered "planets"/"More interesting planetary surfaces" though, which are on the do not suggest list.

You're welcome It's what this forum's here for

I agree the second upgrade should probably be bumped up a bit, but I found I had upgraded the launchpad and was constrained by part count rather than mass before the 18 tonne limit was a problem for me. Of course not everyone's going to be able to build efficient rockets reliably - especially not new players - so if a decent number of people find 18 tonnes as the first limit a little bit too low, sure why not

Hmm okay, try disabling RCS - you don't have any on your ship anyway. If you have most of the probe cores you should be fine, but I haven't used mechjeb during a career or science game so I don't know exactly how the tech tree progression works for it. Also, why do you have 17 messages waiting for your attention?! One possiblity is that your ship just doesn't have enough torque for mechjeb to aim at the maneuver node in time - it's not smart enough to realize it can use a low-thrust engine burn to do the alignment then correct it later in my experience. Solution: slap loads of advanced inline reaction wheels on it (you should need one per column of tanks on that thing for it to steer well.

First, auto-orbit to ~70-75km; you want to arrive in orbit low, because it's more efficient for going elsewhere. Second, are you running out of fuel in the current stage before you reach apoapsis? MechJeb won't auto-stage unless you tell it to. If you can, post the ship design in question (screenshot should be fine, .craft if it's a complicated one)

Don't worry, you're not alone

I.... I never even thought of that. Nice

Yep, this'd be great for the folks like me who simply can't be bothered fine-tuning a SRB to not blast through all the markers in one shot

How big are your rockets exactly? My computer's 8 years old (nearly 9) and it only takes a minute or so for couple-hundred part rockets. The undo feature is in need of serious optimization but that's a whole other subject

Nope, not bugged dude. For the octo struts it's intended behaviour, if a bit strange; parts in KSP can be both node-attachable (anything with those little balls) or surface-attachable (like radial decouplers and so on). Some parts are node-attachable, but not surface-attachable. The not-rockomax micronode is however a bug and it's known - the 6-way 1.25m hub has the same problem. You can only attach that in certain orientations due to how the vessel trees work in KSP/Unity. Okay, I'll break the process of attaching octostruts in symmetry down into basic steps: 1: place an octagonal strut in the scene, somewhere, so it's attached properly. i.e. so you can attach other things to it. 2: place ONE cubic strut surface-attached to it (like you attach a radial decoupler) 3: attach any part you like to the node pointing away from the cubic strut you just attached. 4: make that part the root using the re-root tool. 5: remove the cubic strut (ONLY that!) from the ship, but don't delete it. 6. build the rest of your design, keeping the strut + octo piece around (this could technically be done first). 7. now, grab the cubic strut, and attach it in symmetry mode to whatever. 8. Done! (also you should probably set the root part to something sensible at this point)

Well, now that we've sorted out the issue with "centripetal lift", I figured I might put my degree to use and have a crack at equation 17 like OP actually wanted (apologies for the incredibly ugly text notation): I took the rearranged version from immediately after the (17) label - it seemed easier to work with. equation 17: exp(deltaVp / (g0 * Isp))(1 + sqrt(1 + TWR0^2))/m0 = (1 + sqrt(1 + (g * m_end)^2)) / m_end goal: rearrange for m_end. There's a lot of ugly variables in the way, so let's get rid of most of them to make life way easier: Let E = exp(deltaVp/(g0*Isp)) A = E * (1 + sqrt(1 + TWR0^2)) / m0 Substituting: A = (1 + sqrt(1 + (g * m_end / F)^2) / m_end A * m_end - 1 = sqrt(1 + (g * m_end / F)^2) // multiply both sides by m_end, move the 1 over. (A * m_end - 1)^2 - 1 = (g * m_end / F)^2 // square both sides, move the 1 over. A^2 * m_end^2 - 2A * m_end + 1 - 1 = g^2 * m_end^2 / F^2 // expand all the things! (A^2 - (g/F)^2) * m_end^2 - 2A * m_end = 0 // Behold! we have a pretty quadratic! But there's still some constants that make it a bit harder to read: Let B = (A^2 - (g/F)^2) Substituting: B * m_end^2 - 2A * m_end = 0 B * m_end - 2A = 0 // we can disregard m_end = 0 since it's not realistic m_end = 2A / B. = 2A / (A^2 - (g/F)^2). // uh, yeah. you're on your own from here (it's ugly. very ugly.) disclaimer: I make no claims as to the correctness of this, and it was all done in notepad using my head. If however this is indeed correct, WolframAlpha's apparently not very good with big equations with lots of variables

You can actually set it to do that (note: I do not recommend this unless you enjoy sifting through lots of notifications ) I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, but I'll assume you mean AN/DN. Those are shown on the target orbit when you're in the same SoI. Otherwise, yeah, the UI could be a little better. This is a good idea (post it in suggestions ), but it's not quite that simple I'm afraid; your orbits are almost never going to perfectly intersect, which means computing where that tangent point is (and consequently the relative velocity vector) is hard. You could of course just pick the closest point between the two orbits, but that's some fairly tricky maths to get right (WolframAlpha probably knows how to do that though, if you can figure out how to ask the question). The game technically does that already for getting near a target object's orbit, so I guess there shouldn't be too much left to do there

Well, I'm here. Are you sure that plane is only 24 tonnes? The one plane I did successfully build with (stock) mk3 parts was a similar size, but far heavier (>100 tonnes). Most of that was from the fuel tanks. EDIT: I decided to build a mock-up of the plane myself based on the visible parts. Before adding wings, gears, cargo, etc it weighs in at 28.4 tonnes, which means unless you drained almost all of the fuel from the tanks for some reason, it should be (a lot) heavier than 24t.

Well, who do you think the guys running around the VAB are? (not the guys with clipboards, obviously)

Sounds like someone's been playing with mods for a bit too long...

Of course I meant specifically the part about having to go and pick up the pieces, sorry if that wasn't clear.

There are a few mods for this, but two examples that spring to mind are Interstellar (not updated to 0.90 yet) and RoverDude's standalone Alcubierre Drive mod.